Thread by @Brandi_Buchman

It is Day 47 of the Proud Boys seditious conspiracy trial. Live coverage from the courthouse starts at 9 am ET. Testimony is expected from witnesses for defendant Zachary Rehl. If things go according to plan, the jury will hear from jailbound West Va. PB prez Jeff Finley today.

I will provide minute by minute updates for @emptywheel.

I'm going to jump right in this morning with live-tweets - saving my more lengthy analysis and reportage for a story for @emptywheel in the days ahead!

A human scene in the courtroom today: Mrs. Rehl is in court before jurors enter; she is expected to be called as a witness. She held her and defendant Zachary Rehl's young child on her hip as I watched Rehl blow them a kiss.

And away we go.

Judge Tim Kelly begins. He says there are 2 issues teed up for him in email.
"It seems to me that I side with defense on one issue and one with the government."
First - photographs at issue.
AUSA Erik Kenerson starts.

Kenerson: The inferential value that they have in the govt's view is so low, it doesn't meet 401 and if it does, there's a 403 risk there. It's a photo of Rehl's grandfather taken well before he was born and a photo of Rehl's father when Rehl was a child.

Kenerson: I understand she wants to argue therefore he wouldn't have done anything against the police in 2023 as a result.... it's designed to stoke sympathies.
Kelly: Presumably, it'd be accompanied by testimony that would more or less be...

Kelly cont: I know his attitudes toward the police, based on what I know about him, the way he holds the police in his mind, he would have never have done something like this...and so much of the govt's case has been

... the attitudes of people, of the defendants changed over some period of time and I think its fair for them to introduce testimony and these accompanying photos are the backstory of why he felt a certain reverence toward police and his history. I agree its low probative value

Kelly continued: ...but if it that testimony is going to come in and a photograph saying this is your father, this is your grandfather is admissible too.

Now another issue - Judge Kelly is addressing Carmen Hernandez for Zachary Rehl about a plea agreement for Jeff Finley. She wants to introduce it to show the level of his offenses. Kelly doesn't want it in because it would reveal charging decisions
justice.gov/usao-dc/case-m…

Kelly: Even putting aside the fact that I assume you don't have a case in which a court blessed what you've proposed to do - the reason this stuff comes in, in general, is for the credibility and the defenses of the witness...

Kelly: and the defense would argue and in this case, did argue, that the person had a motive to say things that were favorable to the govt because it would yield better results for them in terms of their plea. Starting with the fact that you're calling the witness here and...

Kelly cont: even the govt, no one it seems to me, is going to be challenging the witness on the grounds that they want to curry favor with the govt... I don't think either side has the motive to say it. I don't see how its relevant.
The flip side of it is, Kelly says...

Kelly: What you've articulated you want to do is akin to what case law has said the government cant do in terms of selective prosecution and charging decisions.... What Mr. Finley did that day is fair game, what he observed with Rehl and all the rest...

Kelly cont: but what the govt chose to charge him with has already been excluded in a pretrial motion.

H. starts by saying its unfair that she had to pull case law (Tarantino) before appearing in court today and adds that she prepped her direct presuming she could talk about the plea ag in way she wants.
I'm entitled to shore up my witness as the government has done, she says...

Kelly: Its funny to me that Tarantino is the leading case on this, it's a long opinion of which three paragraphs have something to do with what we're discussing. We're looking at this, almost Talmudic, like we're trying to extrude something in a Talmudic way...

Kelly: The logic of the opinion is all predicated on the fact that the procedure in this circuit is the govt doesn't have to wait for the defense to attack witness credibility, they can do it on direct, we've been down that road...

Kelly continued: But there has to be logic in what that can be. I don't think, and I'll let govt speak to this, but I don't think govt has intention to attack witness credibility by suggesting he's lying based on his plea ag

Helpful point here and well summarized

https://twitter.com/rparloff/status/1641431168221433858?s=20

Hernandez takes issue with government claiming in its opening that Rehl came to DC with a "fighting force," and she thinks she's entitled to present evidence involving Finley that she argues will prove Rehl did not bring "fighting force" or lead violence.

The charging decision of a tool - I haven't let that in regarding any tool, Kelly says.

Hernandez argues the plea ag 'may not be dispositive, but its relevant". And to extent govt should disclude it is if its unduly prejudicial

The govt has smeared her client, Hernandez says, there's no proof of Rehl being violent.
Kelly interrupts her and says he's heard her on this but its 9:28 (jury is waiting) and shes still not made a relevance argument. So he's going to exclude it.

Kelly says the govt will be able to show Finley his own conduct and say 'did you do this or that' and as court did with defendant's last witness,there will be objections and limits set on a case by case basis

Norm Pattis for Joe Biggs says he sees the defense resting Monday or Tuesday; if govt has rebuttal, it could stretch. But without knowing govt's intentions for rebuttal case, and with closings taking maybe 2 days, it'd be his pref not to have a long weekend chop closing up...

Kelly: April 7 and April 10 are generally closed for holidays; plus jurors had travel plans for Easter holiday as well. So he doesn't expect to sit on those days.

Kelly asks about timing for charging conf. (time to discuss jury instructions)...
AUSA Jason McCullough: Our interest is broadly aligned with what Pattis articulated. It'd be beneficial to have resolution on charging conference so we know how to position arguments to the jury...

McCullough: It's challenging to predict exactly where we will be and it is too early in the day to begin our usual wrangling, however, we do not know what the defense plans to do tomorrow.

McC cont: We've had open communication with defense understanding what their case looks like, but in terms of our rebuttal case, its not clear to us....this is not an invitation for you to step in, because we're having very productive conversations but hopefully by...

McC cont: ..the end of next break, we can give you a roadmap of Friday and Monday and then carve out time early next week to have charge conference, that would be a benefit.

Kelly: The question is whether that's monday, tues or wed. it might be productive to try and complete the defense case, in part it depends on rebuttal, but if you do have small rebuttal case, having defense rest then carving out time for charging conference, then pivoting...

Kelly cont:... do you have anything or not, that may give you a number of days, maybe even putting in a weekend to have my rulings and all the rest...

Kelly says he will work on something this weekend that will help him and all parties proceed a bit more quickly next week.

There's a light at the end of this tunnel. It's about the size of a pinhead but I can still see it.

The jury has entered and the first witness today will be the wife of defendant Zachary Rehl: Amanda Rehl.
She has black glasses, long blonde hair and when asked if she's nervous by Carmen Hernandez she chuckles lightly, nervously and says yes.

Hernandez asks her a few questions about herself first. She was born in Philly. Graduated HS. Attended college and obtained a degree, an associates in business. Now she's a stay at home mom.

She's a stay at home mom for her child with Zach Rehl.
Now Hernandez shows the jury a photo of Rehl's daughter. She's quite cute!

Amanda Rehl met her now-husband Zachary Rehl in 2009. They had a long distance relationship for a period, traveling from Arizona and PA. He had another child from a previous relationship who is 18 years old today, she affirms.

Rehl was honorably discharged from Marines in 2012. They moved to Shippensburg, PA around this time. He would later return to Philadelphia in 2013 and went to Temple University.

They weren't married at this point but still living together. Zach Rehl graduated from Temple, got his bachelors and then later his masters in 2018. He used the GI bill to pay for college. He was the first person in his family to graduate from college.

She has three uncles who are Philly police officers, 2 current, 1 retired. Zach's father was a Philly police officer and his grandfather, too.
Now the jury sees Zach Rehl's family photos.

It shows Zach's father in uniform when Rehl is a child. His brother is also in the picture.
Hernandez shows jury another photo, this one of Zach's grandfather in his police uniform.

They married in 2018. Amanda Rehl says Zach wanted to open a "financial business."
Now Hernandez moves to 1/6.

H: you know Zach is a Proud Boy?
A: Yes
H: you've had philly proud boys at your home?
a: yes
h: did you go to dc on 1/6?
a: no
h: he did?
a: yes

Amanda says Zach drove to DC for 1/6 and came with Isaiah Giddings, Freedom Vy, and Brian Healion, all Proud Boys from Philly.

I don't have too many more questions, you look very scared, Hernandez says.

Amanda chuckles nervously and says "sorry"

Earlier this week, I sent you a video and asked you to listen to it?
Amanda: Yes
This is a video from govt, previously admitted and it shows scenes from the first breach, yelling and shouting.
Could she hear any particular voices?
She could.
Was one Zach's?
No.

Of the chants she heard, Amanda says she heard people chanting the "f word" and "storm the capitol."
How many times did she play that video to hear if it was her husband saying it?
Quite a few times.
Did it sound like Zach?
Not to me.

Now we move to cross by AUSA Erik Kenerson.
He tells her he will keep it short for her today.
Kenerson: Rehl joined PBs in 2018, right?
Amanda: yes
K: he was pretty invested in group?
a: i would say so yes
k: he eventually became president of Philly chapter?
a: yes

And that was a pretty part of his identity?
A: yes
K: part of his involvement with PBs, he organized rallies in Philly?
a: yes
k: and he traveled cross country to go to other Pb rallies as well
a: yes

K: You said you were not here on 1/6, is that right?
a: I was not
K: and in the video Hernandez just played for you, there were a number of voices, lots of ppl chanting, in crowd that you could see?
a: yes

k: you understand a lot of things could effect how a microphone captures sound?
a: yes
kenerson holds up his phone and motions to the mic on it and asks if she would expect it would be easier to hear someone closer to mic than further away
a: yes

Hernandez objects but is overruled.
Now we have a sidebar.

Now jurors see the same clip showed to Amanda earlier from the first breach.
What we hear at 8 seconds in is a lot of chanting from crowd, correct?
Amanda affirms.
Then, about 16 seconds in, Kenerson says: you could clearly make out words, f them, storm the capitol, correct?

Amanda: Yes
Ken: And that rises up above the general crowd noise to be more audible yes?
A: It's more audible
K: you're aware Mr. Rehl shot this video, correct?
A: I believe I was told this yes

Kenerson plays another clip, this one closer to scaffolding. He pauses it, Rehl is visible.
Hernandez objects. Sidebar. Husher on.

Husher off.
Ken: I've drawn an arrow at bottom of screen, that's Mr. Rehl, correct?
A: Yes
Kenerson backs it up and you see Rehl say something before covering his face.
Amanda says she can hear him say "It's too late for that..."
Kenerson pts out Rehl then says "but eff it"

Rehl's wife affirms that's her husband saying "but eff it" in scaffolding clip. Then Kenerson plays the clip from the first breach and asks Amanda again, is that her husband's voice saying fuck it, storm the capitol. She says doesn't sound like it to her.

Kenerson: You would not have wanted Mr. Rehl to go on Capitol grounds on 1/6.
Objection. Sustained. Sidebar. Husher on. Husher off.
You obviously love your husband?
Yes.
And you don't want to see him convicted of anything?
No.
And that ends Amanda Rehl's time on the stand.

Before Carmen Hernandez approaches the podium to begin direct examination of Rehl's next witness, I observe she and Rehl are looking closely at her computer at the counsel table; he's pointing to screen, using hands animatedly as he speaks to her

Now, the next witness for Zach Rehl is on the stand.
It is Jeffery Finley, West Virginia Proud Boy chapter president. He's 30. He's currently employed.

Hernandez: At one pt around Jan 6, he was member of PBs?
Yes m'am, Finley testifies.
He joined in mid 2019.

Finley started his membership with PBs in MD chapter and then started the West Va. chapter himself.
Why did he become a PB?
Finley: I saw in news that Trump supporters and Republicans were getting attacked and I saw PBs defending against that and it resonated.

The political aspect is what got me into it, but the brotherhood aspect of it is why I stayed, Finley testifies.

He went to military school and found brotherhood there. PBs were comparable.

Finley says he met Rehl at a PB rally in Philly. They went out and had pizza.
Hernandez: No longer a member of PB?
Finley: Uhhhh I am not, I am no longer a member of PBs.
Finley says he came to DC on 1/5 and stayed at a hotel, came with other members.

Finley says he can't recall whether he saw Rehl at Harry's bar in DC on 1/5 evening.
He went to DC on 1/6, was not part of MOSD, he testifies, but was part of Boots on the Ground chat.

H: Did you march around with PBs on 1/6?
Finley: I did
H: On 1/6 did you use any weapons?
F: No
Attack anyone, destroy any property?
F: No

When Hernandez asks if Finley saw Rehl attack anyone, use weapons, destroy prop, Finley says "absolutely not."

Did Rehl ever tell Finley if he attacked anyone or destroyed any property on 1/6?

No he did not, Finley says.
What was Finley wearing on 1/6?
A suit. Headphones. A backward Trump hat, he testifies.

Hernandez now plays video footage from around the Washington Monument and featured very prominently before Finley shows up is a man with a giant Confederate flag passing by.
But Finley doesn't show up. It's the wrong timestamp and also the wrong video, Hernandez says.

Now, Hernandez has the right video pulled up for the witness. Jury can't see it just yet. Did Finley see himself in it?
I did, for a second there, Finley testifies.
Now Hernandez moves to admit the video into evidence.

H: Do you know what you were doing (in the video)?

We were praying, Finley says.

The jury sees the video now - it is footage from Eddie Block. People take a knee to pray, but it is only shown very briefly.

Now Hernandez plays a clip from same Block footage about five minutes in.
Is this by the food trucks? I don't remember exactly, Finley says as he looks at his screen.
Video not yet shown to jury.

H: Are you going to come in [on screen] from right side?
Finley: yes m'am.
Now it's been admitted. There's another clip she wants to introduce behind it.
If you see yourself will you let me know? Hernandez asks.
Finley points himself out in back.
Jury still not seeing vids

Now the jury sees a video, again just for a moment. She's trying to show different segments from these defense clips.

Now a clip plays and Finley can ID himself walking with group.

Finley can ID himself in another clip.
Jurors see video of people walking, some people holding American flags, other holding Trump flags, waving them in air. Several PBs are visible including Finley (and Biggs on his phone)

Another clip. closer to Capitol. Finley is right behind Joe Biggs. He affirms that's him.
(moments before Finley shows up on screen, there's also rehl, nordean, donohoe visible)

Did Mr. Biggs tell you to storm the Capitol?
Nordean? Pezzola?
Finley says "no he did not" to all.
Hernandez did not ask about Tarrio. Or Rehl.

Another clip. Finley is asked to ID himself. He does.
Finley in this clip, he testifies, is helping Eddie Block get his electric scooter down steps at Capitol.

I'm going to pause live-tweeting for a moment.

I'm back.

Hernandez continuing review of video footage from morning and early afternoon of Jan. 6.

At some point, she asks Finley, did you ---
Kelly stops her for the morning break for the court reporter.

Here's that Rehl video shown earlier today depicting the first breach:

We will resume shortly.

And we're back.

Hernandez: I'm not going to torture anybody any longer with my video clippings.
Were you with PBs most of the day?
F: Yes

H: did there come a time when you sort of left them?
F: For the food trucks and then once we started to move up, when there was a whole unch of ppl we sort of lost each other.
H: It got very chaotic, would you say?
F: Yes very chaotic

H: Pepper spray from police?
Finley: Pepper spray, rubber balls
H: See bad conduct by demonstrators?
F: Yes
H: Like throw things at police?
F: Yes
H: You never threw anything at police?
F: No
H: Ever see Rehl throw anything at police?
F: No

Hernandez elicits from Finley that he did not see Biggs, Nordean or Pezzola throw items at police.
Video then plays close up to Capitol, i believe near west terrace
I was trying to regroup, Finley says of his activities here.

In clip, Hernandez asks Finley what he can hear.
"Pence just got evacuated"
Did that change anything for Finley?
"I don't recall ever hearing that while I was there," he testifies.
Did you hear anybody say, you wanna go in and see what happens?
Finley couldn't, too noisy

Did he know the person who said "you wanna go in and see what happens?"
Finley says its "just another Proud Boy"

Now clip from Capitol interior hallway near windows reached. Hernandez asks if Finley can ID himself. "I'm kinda lost in the sauce," Finley says quietly as he searches for himself.
He finds himself.
It wasn't a fast entry, it was pretty slow, he testifies.

When you entered the Capitol that day, what were you thinking?
Finley: Originally it was about witnessing history and then I got caught up in the mob mentality of it all and eventually trespassed into the Capitol.

H: Did you do it to stop legislators?
F: No
H: Did you discuss with Rehl intent to stop legislators?
F: I did not

He was with the PBs since 2019 and testifies he left middle of last year. He went to several rallies. Ever see Rehl use violence at those rallies in PA?
No.
Ever see violence at other rallies in PA?
No

h: Did you have communication with Rehl on 1/6?
f: I said if you leave, you're not getting back in and Proud of your boy, something like that.
h: Were you congratulating him with 'Proud of Your Boy"?

Finley says its about being proud of the individual, not nec. their actions.

Does he regret going into the Capitol?
f: Absolutely I regret that.
h: Why?
f: Repercussions aside, i don't think that was a constructive way

Early on, Finley says he believed there was "voter issues going on" but by time 1/6 approached, he didn't believe there was widespread voter fraud and just wanted voices to be heard

Hernandez has Finley testify: he's been interested in law and politics for a long time and once thought of becoming a politician but now that won't be possible he says because of PB label etc.
"That would be a loss," Hernandez tells Finley.

That ends Hernandez's direct examination of Finley.

Husher is now on for a sidebar before we proceed.

I'm having tech issues, so brb!

Atty Sabino Jauregui for Tarrio now up to question Finley.
He elicits from Finley: Tarrio always wanted to make sure Proud Boys were safe and that he (Finley) did not receive any directives from Tarrio on Jan. 6.

There's been a sidebar for aoubt a minute or two thus far...

As husher comes off, Jauregui walks back toward Nayib Hassan to consult for a moment then returns to podium.
J: You've known Tarrio for awhile?
F: Yes
J: You know what his feelings are on protests, rallies, being seen?
f: i believe he's pro-protest for a good cause

J: Having interacted with Tarrio in past, was his main intent to be seen? have a presence whenever talking about any issue? Let me ask you this, did he interact with media?
f: Yes, he interacted with media for us.

J: When organizing protester rallies, was the intent to have the PBs presence be known to the rest of the country?
Objection. Overruled
Finley: I would believe so

Jauregui: Having past interactions, past knowledge of him, would it have been Enrique's desire for Capitol to be stormed?
Objection. Speculation.

Now to cross by Nadia Moore. She elicits he's not a Proud Boy anymore but was on Jan. 6. At that time, it was important part of his life?
F: Sure
Spent a lot of time with PBs?
Yes
Went to mtgs, rallies?
Yes

You were in a number of PB-only chats?
Correct
You were pretty active in those chats?
It depends on the chat
Fair to say you spent fair amount of time interacting with PBs either in person or on Telegram?
F: yes

You viewed Proud Boys as bbrothers?
Yes
Four degrees in PBs?
Finley: Yes
What were you?
Finley: 4th degree
Moore: You have West Va. Proud Boy tattooed across your chest?
I do.
You were chapter president in WVA?
Yes
Weren't in MOSD?
I was not
But in Boots on Ground?
I was

Sidebar. Husher on.

This is the longest one today.

Sidebar over.
Now Moore brings up a chat log from Boots on Ground where Biggs says, "I'm here with Rufio (Nordean) and a good group."
Finley (El Jefe) writes that he let Nordean know he was there, then "guess he didn't need good ol' West Va. pres :("

Moore: You understood PBs held animosity toward police on 1/6?
Sidebar again.
Husher on.

Husher off.
On morning of 1/6, you held animosity toward police?
Finley: Me? No. I don't believe I held animosity toward them.

Now Moore pulls up another chat from Finley. He reads it to himself. He says he doesn't really remember saying it, (it was 2 years ago, he says)..

but if it was him, it was him.

"I'm just gonna [redacted] in a suit today, hope to see you all soon. POYB and fuck the blue."

POYB = Proud of your Boy
Moore: That references pride in what you're doing?
F: yes
M: And fuck the blue references the police?
F: Yes

Moore: Regardless of what other people did or did not, you understood ldrship didn't want you all in PB colors on 1/6? Fair to say?
Finley: Sure

Now jury sees clip from Wash Monument and there's Finley in red Trump hat and suit.
M: You were at Monument but Trump was speaking at Ellipse?
F: I was at Ellipse originally and then moved to Monument
M: To join up with PBs?
F: Yes
M: You attended Trump's speech?
Finley: No

Moore: You marched to Capitol among a group of PBs?
F: Correct.
M: You were not leading the march?
F: No
m: Nordean was leading the march?
Finley hesitates, thinking: I believe so.
Moore shows him footage, asks who is leading? Is that Nordean (aka Rufio)
F: I believe it is

Sidebar with husher for a minute or two.
You saw Nordean having conversations with small group of PB including Biggs, Rehl and a PB you knew as Yut? (Charles Donohoe)
Yes
You weren't privy to those convos?
I was not

When you got to Capitol, you could see there were barricades?
Correct
USCP set those up?
I would assume so
You understood the grounds were clearly restricted right?
Objection, beyond scope. Overruled.
F: I saw they were barricaded off, yes

And when you got to Peace Circle area, Biggs started riling people up with chants?
Finley: We chanted all the time, I don't think it was to rile ppl up
M: but he was chanting 'whose capitol, our capitol' and 'whose house, our house'
F: Correct

Now Moore plays footage for jury, its two side by side videos from same scene but different vantage, one with audio and video, one with video only.
PBs are gathered with rioters, Biggs on bullhorn leading chant.
Hernandez calls for sidebar. Husher on.

Husher off.
M: This was chanting you observed on 1/6?
F: Correct
M: You heard people chanting [inaudible]---

Objection from Hernandez. Kelly overrules. Very. Pointedly.

Moore: Were you interviewed by the FBI?
Finley: Yes I was
Moore: While you were interviewed did you tell them ---
Hernandez objects. Sidebar. Husher on.

Husher off.
Moore: After Peace Circle chants, you saw rioters break through barricades?
F: Yes
M: Including PBs you marched with?
F: PBs were in mass of people
M: And when that first beach happened, you looked at Nordean?
Finley: I don't recall who I looked at specifically

Moore moves to introduce Finley's statement of offense and Hernandez objects. Sidebar again.
justice.gov/usao-dc/case-m…

Sidebar over.
Moore asks Finley to look at this section.
Once the initial breach happened, the barricades went down, who did you look to?
Finley: On video or on leadership decision, what are you asking specifically?
M: Who did you look to? Or did you look to someone?
F: yes

Moore drills down: Who
F: I assume it was --
Objection.
Judge Kelly tells him not to assume anything.
Finley tells judge he's trying to figure out if its in leadership or on video

Moore: Did you look to someone as a leader that day once the barricades went down?
F: I did not look to Rufio for command or as a leader as barricades went down.
M: But did you look to someone once barricades went down?
Finley: I believe I did

Moore: He {Nordean} was leader that day?
Finley: Leader of the march
Moore: Of which you were a member?
Finley: Yes

Moore: You went into restricted groud that day
F: I did
Moore: You saw PBs rushing up walkway?
I saw a lot of people rushing up the walkway
Hernandez objects and Kelly says, "I've already explained this, overruled"
Of the dozens ppl moving up, you saw Proud Boys?
Sure, yes

Did he see Proud Boys moving barricades out of the way?
Finley: I saw a crowd move barricades, I cannot speak to whether I saw PBs moving barricades though
Objection. Sustained.
M: You stayed on Cap grounds for hours?
Finley: I don't know how long I was on Capitol grounds for

Moore: but you were there for a long time?
F: sure
M: and while you were there, you heard ppl screaming about a stolen election
F: yes
Finley says he didn't see rioters mace police, or assault them
Moore says he told FBI he saw a rioter mace a police officer.

M: at some pt, crowd overran police and you made it to upper level of capitol bldg
F: correct
m: and you met rehl there?
f: i did
m: and you started celebrating?
f: could you qualify celebrating?
m: you took a celebratory photo
f: its a photo

m: that you posed for illegally on capitol grounds
f: i did
m: and that's Mr. rehl on the left?
f: yes
m: other men are PBs?
f: yes
and you all are throwing up a PB hand sign?
f: correct

It was Zach's idea to go into the building?
We discussed it. I was part of that discussion, also talking about going in.
Moore: My question is did he ask you, "you wanna go in?"
Finley shrugs his shoulders, "I guess"

Moore: You understand why police didn't want you in the bldg?

Finley: I bbelieve so
Moore: You didn't believe election was stolen at that point?
F: Correct
Then jurors see footage of Finley coming into Cap thru Senate wing door, he went through and shortly after, Rehl went into Sen. Merkley's office

Jurors see Rehl's selfie photo inside of Merkely's office. Finley also took a selfie in this doorway. Shortly after this, he left Capitol.
Then he sent a video to the Boots on Ground chat.

There's an objection and we're now on a sidebar.

Kelly announces that we are now going on lunch.

Jurors are excused.
Hernandez wants redactions on an exhibit, sounds like its a podcast. Kelly asks her to consult with govt over lunch; then Kelly asks Moore why any of this is relevant within her cross.

Moore: There's 2 clips in a livestream interview he gave. He's (Finley) not on screen. but his voice is audible and he's denying PBs were in Capitol, which obviously he knows to be false because he was in the Capitol and was with PBs in Capitol, so it goes toward bias

Sabino Jauregui (for Tarrio) doesn't want it in, because the host on the podcast says the leader of PBs told them to go into the Capitol and that prejudices Tarrio's case.

Hernandez says entering this podcast would be misleading; the govt knew all this when they gave Finley a plea ag and "they continue to open door and attack his credibility. they're talking about bias, i think i get to enter the fact that despite all this, they gave him a plea ag"

Hernandez says government's case is about "theatrics in front of the jury"
The reality is, Hernandez argues, they're accepting his plea ag, gave him a misdemeanor ...
She also questions why govt hasn't charged informant "Aaron" with perjury.

Tweet deleted because I misidentified the witness Hernandez referenced at first.

Kelly tells Hernandez he thinks she has a fundamental misunderstanding about plea ag (he explained it this morning and that's high up in my thread). Hernandez argues Finley's statements to FBI were coercive.

Moore says Finley w as enhanced 2 points for obstruction and he admitted in his statement of offense that he destroyed evidence.

Kelly says he'll listen to the podcast over lunch and tells Jauregui it doesn't seem like a nonfrivolous objection to keep it out given that, according to Jauregui, the host says PB leader told people to go into Capitol

All right: we're finally on lunch. But before we go, AUSA Jason McCullough tells Judge Kelly that Hernandez's assessment of Finley's statements to the FBI is not accurate - it was not coercive, as she claimed.
Then he explained:

Finley's statement of offense was created while he was interviewing with the FBI long before pre-setencing began. He voluntarily appeared and much of what he said in that interview was the basis for his statement of offense.

We will be back around 1:45 p.m. ET.

We should be underway soon. Today folks I have a hard stop at 5 p.m.

Receiving word now that Judge Kelly will return to the bench at 2 p.m. ET.

And we're back.

Judge Kelly resumes, apologizes for being a few minutes late but says it was time well spent.
Ms. Moore, why don't we do it this way - I got all your exhibits, what exhibits do you plan to use going fwd?
Moore rattles off a few; the first exhibit at issue is one where Finley...

is expressing that none of the people he was there with, or "his boys" were arrested.
Kelly: I'm going to end up excluding a lot of this but I thnk that's fair in terms of his credibility.

Next items are photo exhibits involving Finley, Kelly say they are in play too; another trio of exhibits are introduced and Kelly say one is cumulative and but other two exhibits are OK if one word is redacted. (It's a slur)

Kelly said he would have excluded two other exhibits but we aren't using them.

There are several video exhibits govt wants in when they resume cross of Finley; Kelly says one exhibit is fair for cross; another is a msg where Finley says "if i get clipped I'll never say a damn thing, I'll need someone to torch my fucking computer"....

Kelly: I think that goes to his credibility.
He tells govt they have eliminated all of the things he was going to exclude because we did not open door to antifa with this witness.

All the ones you indicated you were going to use already, I'll let you use except for one because its duplicative under 403, Kelly tells prosecution.

There's a clip that prosecutors are willing to shorten down for the jury after discussing it with Sabino Jauregui (Tarrio's atty).
Kelly comments: I think its fair that he (Finley) said, I didn't know anybody who went in there or something to that effect...

Kelly: The rest of it, I think there were other potential problems, you have the host saying, your leader told you to, or things to that nature and i think that would be a problem.
Moore says another clip won't be played

Hernandez (for Rehl) objects, saying of Finley: What he said not in court, he doesn't owe any duty or obligation to tell the truth on a media outlet. He told us already, he volunteered that there were a lot of repercussions around his involvement, incl. being doxxed...

Hernandez says government is attacking Finley unfairly; Kelly says its the govt's job to attack his credibility; Hernandez says DOJ is trying to open door to plea ag and Kelly says, on that basis, no.

Jauregui says Finley is really saying in pod that QANON boomers were most responsible for assaulting police.
Kelly: you may be right, and he may just explain that away...

In this case, there's nothing really probative about what they went into. One part he talks about Nordean being a leader in group and that's not a contested fact in this case, Kelly says. I don't think they open the door ---
Hernandez interjects.

Hernandez, still on Finley: Maybe the jury has forgotten what the statement of offense is, but that's a term of art. The whole idea that this gentleman, I find it very difficult to see how the govt gets to attack, mercilessly if you ask me...

Hernandez cont: "...these witnesses, if they can't point to a single thing he said that's not true (in court). If he took the stand and said I wasn't there, I didn't march with them, I wasn't part of Boots on Ground --they're looking at these minute statements...

Hernandez cont: "...on the edges and they're trying to make this man out to be a lawyer when he's coming here -- unlike their witnesses, like [jeremy] Bertino, who will not be in my entire career, they've never prosecuted a cooperating witness who helped them...

H cont: ...he comes in here exposed, like any other citizen. There has to be limits to the way they can expose someone and then on top of that, prevent us from telling the whole story to the jury...

"That's all they are doing to this man is trying to embarrass him and I don't think that's fair," Hernandez says.
AUSA McCullough: The govt is impeaching this witness --
Hernandez interrupts.
Kelly: Ms! Hernandez! What in the world! I gave you all the time in the world...

Hernandez continues to interrupt
Kelly: if you can't obey my rules, then we will have to stop.
Hernandez says she wants to be heard on an objection.
Kelly asks her to stop talking now. "I'm not hearing you."

McCullough: We are impeaching this witness on the rules of evidence, we're putting stmts that indicate his bias, including stmts that go toward his bias of his brotherhood. "Came for politics, stayed for brotherhood"....

McC: Finley was assessed 2 pt enhancement on sentencing guidelines for destroying evidence... the suggestion that govt is engaged in smear campaign and character assassination is incorrect; the govt is impeaching the witnesses that have a bias and loyalty to the defendants

McC: we are doing it with integrity; unfortunately, it is not our doing that they use vulgarity and offensive language with the kind of repetition that would render these stmts virtually unintelligible should you remove it all...

McCullough continued: So we do not apologize for pursuing our case in the way we are. The suggestion that we're doing it in a slimy or sleazy way is incorrect and offensive.
Kelly says all right, he won't hear any more on this. He says it was appropriate...

for McCullough to respond because it was he who handled the Finley case and his named was invoked by Hernandez here.

Hernandez: I bet you it was because he prosecuted him...
Kelly says I bet that's right but it's totally irrelevant.

Nick Smith for Ethan Nordean says regarding other objections for evidence; he wants items out where Finley refers to Nordean (aka Rufio) as a leader.
Kelly: Mr. Smith, If you could pivot and turn to look at me when you're speaking...
Smith says it wasn't intentional....

Before jury enters, the judge is now listening to the pod again in courtroom, to see where Nordean may be referred to as a leader.
"That's the clip?"Kelly asks after its done.
He started at a point in clip suggested to him by Jauregui.

Kelly says to Jauregui: It does eliminate the concern you have, but I thought his [Finley] statement was after this?
There's back and forth; the host is urging the PBs are responsible, Finley says no, its QANON boomers, he also says he didn't see PBs involved...

On cumulative grounds, Kelly will let in only one of these two videos

The slur was "gimp n----"
And Kelly would let in gimp but not the n-word

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1641505307045027855?s=20

After several more minutes of argument from Hernandez about the Finley plea agreement; we ultimately outline the next two witnesses for Rehl will be Henry McGill and Mr. Guffrey (or Guthrie, I can't hear it clearly enough)

Biggs says he'll have two stipulations for Biggs - how does that get presented to jury?
Kelly says he'll read them to court.

And now the jury has returned and Jeff Finley is back on the stand.
Prosecutor Nadia Moore: After 1/6, you began destroying evidence
Finley: I was unaware I was under investigation, i was afraid of being doxxed so I started deleting media...

Moore now shows Finley a msg from 1/8. It is presented to the jury.
"Deleted all the photos I may have had, advised my boys too as well. no one talks about dc on telegram and gathering #s as we speak"
So you just didn't delete your own photographs?
I advised others to do as well

Moore: After 1/6 you were relieved none of your brothers were arrested
Finley: Uhhh, I did have a feeling like that
Next exhibit. Are these your messages?
Yes, Finley says.
Message shown: "None of my boys got got"

Finley says this was in ref. to shooting, I could be wrong but think it was about that.
Moore: There was a shooting --
Finley interrupts her and just louder than he has testified all day: "Ashli Babbit. Jan 6."

You also promised if you did get arrested you wouldn't cooperate?
Yes, Finley testifies
He wrote that he would torch his computer...
That's what I wrote, he testifies.

Moore: You advised PBs against making a 1/6 challenge coin?
It's a msg from 1/12.

Moore: That's from you?
It says its from me, Finley says

My bad - in earlier tweet here: I meant Pattis for Biggs.

https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1641513823692546062?s=20

1/12 text user with handle Archie Bunker tells Finley: Anybody know if there were any dc coins made? i'd like to find dc 1, 2, and dc insurrection day coin. that' would make a money maker.
Finley replies with advice against this...

Finley on 1/12: "having those coins would just place you in dc and give more ammo against you"

More text from Finley now. From 1/9/21 where he's talking about PB photog on 1/6 Eddie Block:
"Originally i thought eddie just did that for closed channel vids for PBBs, don't know that [redacted] gave them to media"
"wow"
"[redacted] dead ass just saying people's names"

Moore asks if Finley was angry that Eddie Block was filming.
That might have been my frame of mind, Finley says.
Moore shows him more msgs.
Are these yours?
"it seems to be the case"
Here jurors see the "gimp n-word" text from Finley.
Hernandez objects. Sidebar

Husher is off after sidebar.
"I told that gimp [redacted] to delete that shit in its entirety"
That's what it says, yes
That's a ref to Eddie Block
best part is he couldn't get to Cap so he basically just has footage of guys marching not horrible but not great

Moore elicits that Finley told Block to take the videos down, but he says he can't recall the exact "phraseology" he used
He affirms he deleted his social media account before he gave online interviews.

Now, Moore moves onto pod interview where Finley talks about Jan. 6. At the time, he went by handle "Suspect Sushi"
The host uses the word "attack" to describe 1/6 and Finley responds in pod that's just colorful language.
He affirms in court today he said that.

Moore: You said you wouldn't know anything about what happened on 1/6?
Finley more defensive saying host wasn't a law enforcement officer, and I'm lightly paraphrasing, Finley says he didn't owe him anything informationally and that's why he said he didn't know anything about 1/6

You said you didnt know any Proud Boys who were remotely close to being in the Capitol, but you were a PB and you were in the Capitol?
F: Correct
And you were with Rehl in the Capitol?
F: Correct
And you went in with 3 other Philly PBs?
F: If that's where they were from, then yes

That ends cross of Finley by Moore.
Now, redirect from Nick Smith for Ethan Nordean.
Smith brings up a video exhibit from breach one.
S: Do you recall this moment when crowd of ppl were standing in front of barriers at traffic circle on 1/6?
I do

You were asked if you looked to Ethan Nordean (earlier today on cross). Was that question clear to you?
No it was not, Finley said, I had to ask for an explanation.
Now Smith brings up video and draws circle around Nordean. Finley affirms its Nordean.

Were you able to observe Mr. Nordean or Rufio as you were walking with him?
I was, Finley testifies.
The video now plays.
S: Did you see Mr. Nordean raise his hand like that? What do you know that to mean on a march?
F: Hold, don't move further.
S: Somone else raise fist?

Finley says yes, he sees someone else raise fist, but doesn't know who it is.
More video plays, he sees Nordean raise fist again. he understood that to mean don't keep going forward.

In clip (no timestamp given by Smith), Finley IDs himself and Nordean and Nordean is facing toward him, he testifies.
I looked to him here yes, Finley says
Was Nordean encouraging you to enter Capitol?
He was saying hold.

Smith: Was Nordean trying to get him or others to commit crimes?
Finley: No, i do not believe he was trying to get us to commit crimes

Smith: Did you enter Capitol as a result of an agreement reached with someone?
I did that of my own volition, Finley testifies.

Smith goes to show Finley his statement of offense. He doesn't announce that right away, but when he asks Finley what this is, Finley says "statement" before prosecutor Moore cuts him off and objects, then asks to be heard. Sidebar. Husher on.

Does that document refresh your memory of you saying you looked to Nordean as a leader of the march?
Yes, he was the leader of the march

S: Did you tell govt you saw Nordean advance on Cap?
F: This verbiage is used after the video was me following Rufio, so I didn't recall it, but it was obvious that I did see him
And those were stmts you made to the govt at some pt?
Finley looks skyward and thinks

Smith then says, I'm asking if you made those stmts to the govt.
Finley: Some of those stmts are from me and others are framed by video timing if I don't recall

Sidebbar. Husher on.
you testified that Nordean did not encourage you? did not encourage me, finley repeats back
S: you said you looked to nordean as a leader?
f: correct
s: you saw nordean advance onto Cap grounds and you followed him?
f: correct

s: is anything you previously told the govt not consistent with what you testified to today?
f: i do not recall
smith: your testimony is truthful and accurate?
f: correct
smith now repeating the same line of q and doj objects, leading. sustained.

I did not tell the government that he was encouraging me, Finley says of defendant Ethan Nordean

When Finley is asked by Smith if the crowd's conduct on 1/6 seemed spontaneous, Finley says as he watched people "dismantle barricades very quickly, it seems like they practiced it."

More footage plays for jury from Cap exterior first reach.
Finley IDs Joe Biggs. Finley affirms Biggs in this moment (no timestamp) is facing away from Capitol.

Were these figures at the first breach all PBs?
Finley, shaking head: I do not recall that at all

Smith: You testified that you were on the march to the Capitol with the group the whole way?
Did you hear anyone say they should invade the Capitol?
No I did not, Finley testifies.

S: You were shown a text saying you wouldn't say a damn thing if you got clipped. Was the 'damn thing' an agreement to invade Capitol?
F: It was just a blanket stmt, like I wouldn't become an informant or anything

You also knew PBs could get in trouble for entering the Cap, was that a damn thing?
Finley says it could be

Norm Pattis for Joe Biggs is up to examine Jeff Finley.
He told govt Biggs led them, Finley says he just meant like, leader of march that day.
P: When you left Monument, did you have an understanding of where you were headed?
F: No

In interactions with Biggs, did you develop an understanding?
F: he said something along lines of, we're going to stand outside the capitol and make our voices heard
Pattis: those were biggs' words?
F: something to that effect

Finley affirms to Pattis that Biggs had a bullhorn on him all day and would use it to chant.
P: How many more times did he say fuck antifa vs whose house our house
Finley: honestly, i lose count, its our number 1 chant

Did Biggs ever direct Finley to do anything?
No.
Did Finley intend to enter Capitol in morning?
No
Intend to interfere with police?
No
Finley ever intend to interfere with Congress?
"Uh, no, not at that time, no."

Pattis plays footage now, you saw ppl advance quickly on the jury -- i mean the barricades?
Yes - and those people were not to my knowledge PBs.
What made you reach the conclusion that ppl had practiced removing?
Two ppl approached quickly and removed it v. quickly.

P: Did Biggs ever ask you to storm Capitol, convey to you its a good idea, ever whisper to you, now's our time to stop the U.S govt, did you plan to topple the US govt on 1/6?
Absolutely not, Finley says to all.

Sabino Jauregui: Were you interviewed by FBI agent Nicholas Hanak?
Objection. sustained.
Did you meet with lead prosecutor in this case, Mr. McCullough?
Yes
Met July 7?
Finley doesn't recall sounds right, can't recall how long mtg went, maybe 2 hours

Did you tell the truth in that meeting?
To the best of my recollection, yes, Finley testifies.
And you made formal written stmt on 3/8/22, correct?
Correct
Did you lie in that stmt?
Not to my recollection
Are you telling the truth here today?
Yes

Did you think the election was stolen?
No
Did Enrique?
Objection. Sustained.
The reason you were made at Eddie Block because you wanted to conceal or....
F: My belief was, keeping that up would give us a higher chance of being doxxed

Jauregui elicits from Finley that he came to DC on 1/6 because whether he believed the election was stolen or not, he felt it was the right of people to protest (light paraphrase)
Did he have an understanding to attack Capitol on 1/6? Objective to?
Absolutely not, Finley says

Carmen Hernandez now up.
I issued a subpoena for you to appear, correct?
Correct, Finley says
Hernandez: Knowing what you know now, you may have tried to evade subpoena?
F: Absolutely not, I would have come even if you just asked

Kelly asks Hernandez to speak up and she jokes, getting a giggle for Judge Kelly - "are you asking me to talk more loudly?"

H: You would agree that the posts about Eddie Block were not nice?
F: They were not nice
h: Were you drunk?
No I was just a little angry
You were angry?
Yeah, at Eddie.
Was that internet rage?
Possibly
Is that how you feel today about Eddie?
No

Hernandez says she's giving Finley a chance to explain himself....
Finley: Keeping the videos up that Eddie had opened up people to being doxxed after multiple ppl including myself told him to take it down.

I was doxxed, but haven't rec'd any threats, Finley says.

H: By testifying today, I'm not abble to reduce your sentence?
Obj. Sustained.
H: Im not able to give you any other benefits?
Kelly: I said the objection was sustained.
H: I'm saying other benefits
Kelly: Other benefits?
H: I'm not paying for your presence here?
Finley: Correct

Has he gone to other events in DC protesting?
Yes, the March for Life
Hernandez thinks this may be a protest related to shootings, Finley corrects her, it's a "pro-life" protest

Hernandez: Moore asked you if you accepted responsibility for your conduct.
Objection, Misstates. Sustained.
Finley: Sustained?
Kelly - Actually, madame court reporter, do you need a break? (She doesn't)
Kelly asks her to rephrase her q.

H: our notes reflect that you were asked whether you accepted responsibility for entering the capitol?
F: yes, i accept responsibility for that
H: that was a formal proceeding you accepted responsibility?
Objection. Sustained.

Hernandez asks about the online interview Finley did, Finley says he wasn't honest with him because the host wasn't law enforcement, he wasn't in court, didn't feel an obligation to tell the truth.
H: And as you sit here, that doesn't make you a liar?
Objection. Sustained.

Sidebar. Husher on.

Husher off. Moore asked you about deleted or destroyed evidence on your phone
F: I was asked questions about that? Yes.
H: That was a long time ago?
F: Yes
H: Right around 1/6?
F: Yes
H: Why

F: I deleted things from Jan. 6 because of doxxing [concerns] first and foremost... I wasn't aware I was under investigation, so I didn't delete anything trying to avoid...

Hernandez: As you left the capitol, you didn't understand you may have committed a crime?
Obj. Overruled.
F: I understood I may have
You told Moore you accepted responsibility for entering the Capitol
Objection. Misstates. Sustained.

Hernandez fights it, saying that's what Moore asked.
Moore quietly says, no its not.

Jury goes on break for 10 mins as court reporter takes a break.

Kelly says he can't recall if Moore asked specifically if he accepted responsibility for entering the Capitol or for his "conduct"

Moore: If I may, I never said that the closest thing i did was ask him if he knew what he was doing illegal, i never asked him if he accepted responsibility
Hernandez says notes are from Pattis, he may be to blame, Kelly jokes, let's not pile on Pattis...

Kelly: I appreciate everyone fessing up in this great whodunnit
Moore: Mr. Jauregui cannot open the door for Ms. Hernandez to ask inappropriate questions
Kelly agrees and Jauregui is smiling and nodding.

McCullough: Therein lies the point, there is an effort to backdoor in information...
Hernandez: Decorum. Decorum.
McC: It is improper.
H: I do not backdoor stuff...

Hernandez: It's very unprofessional....

There's some back and forth, a wisecrack from Hernandez about Jauregui practicing for years as a prosecutor in Florida; before becoming a defense atty. Kelly jokes that Jauregui may have just been doxxed.
Now the break!

And we're back.

And we start with the dulcet tones of the husher.

Husher off.
Hernandez pulls up footage for Finley to review for redirect.
H: you were talking about other ppl who had megaphones near that breach? Is this the gentleman you're talking about?
F: There were many ppl with megaphones, I don't recall in particular.

Before Hernandez wraps up redirect of Finley, she elicits an "absolutely not" from him when he is asked whether he is lying today on the stand.

Now - Hernandez was prepared to move onto her next witness but before she can, AUSA Jason McCullough stands up behind her. Hernandez says, I think Mr. McCullough has an objection. And they move to the phones.

McCullough's eyebrows raised high as he speaks into phone (I can't hear him, no one can, husher is on), Hernandez is animated as well, they started facing each other and then McC walks away, Hernandez turns to judge while they're all on phone

The sidebar is over. The husher is now off. But nothing is happening just yet...

From my vantage pt in the media room, with limited views as it is on the video feed, i can't see where Hernandez or McCullough went. Everyone is sitting quietly talking or working but those two aren't immediately visible on screen.

Ah - it appears we were fetching the witness!

Rehl's next witness is up for direct examination by Carmen Hernandez.
Anthony Joseph Guiffre.
He's 48 and unemployed, medically retired USMC since March 2017. Served for 3 years. He was a guard at Guantanamo Bay for 6 months.

Do you Zach Rehl?
Guiffre: Yes, i absolutely do.
H: How?
G: Through Proud Boys.
He was a member of PBs on 1/6 but says he is no longer a member. He was a dual chapter member with NJ and Philly when he first began.

H: You were a member in NJ with Danny Mac?
G: Yes
H: Mr. Mac has been identified as a CHS
Objection. Relevance. Sustained.
Hernandez says "its.... i can move on." and she does.

H: So you were dual member of NJ and Philly PBs?
G: Yes
H: Involved with Zach Rehl in Philly
G: yes
Hernandez elicits from Guiffre: after he was charged there was a brief period with leadership council until ultimate he became prez of Philly chapter

He drove to DC on 1/5.

Where did you stay?
G: Coincidentally, I ended up staying in the same hotel as Zach and was in a room in the floor beneath him.
h: Did you remember other gentlemen who stayed with Zach?
G: Isaiah (Giddings) Brian (Healion) and Freedom (Vy)

Guiffree says he went to sleep in his room around 10 p.m. on 1/5.
Did you and Zach that evening talk about plans for following day?
No, not really too much
Did he tell you that night the plan was to attack Capitol following day?
Absolutely not

On 6th, Guiffre says he got up, got dressed, did usual stuff people do when they get up and then he met with members of NJ PBs and then from that staging point, we had a little bit of a walk.
Towards where?
The lawn where Cap is...

Did you see any of the speeches that day?
No, but I heard them. The crowd was so overwhelming, there was such a big crowd, we couldn't maneuver to see. It was a cold, windy day, I had guys from NJ, asked them what they wanted to do...

They weren't happy from previous times in DC, Guiffre testifies.
So what did he tell them to do?
Don't make us look terrible, have fun in DC
Who is us?
The Proud Boys

Guiffre: It was cold and windy, I figured whatever was being said on the teletron could be watched at a bar, have some wings

Guiffre testifies that he ends up going to a bar at the Marriott where a friend was staying and they ordered wings and pizza. He says the friend was staying there "long before anything at Capitol"

Rehl mentioned he wanted you to be part of MOSD?
Guiffre affirms.
"Uncle Tony" is Guiffre's handle.

Hernandez now pulls up exhibit showing MOSD app form; Guiffre affirms he was fourth degree; on app where asked rallies he attended, he wrote, "a lot"
He joined the Proud Boys Ministry of Self Defense (MOSD) because of Zach, he affirms.

On 3rd page of app for MOSD, there is a code of conduct, affirming if you wouldn't use drugs or alcohol at an event unless its sanctioned. You agreed to that?
Guiffre:Yes

He also answered yes to other MOSD code of conduct application questions, including statement on form that says "i will always act in self defense and i will never initiate a confrontation. is this something you can agree on?

Did you bring any weapons to DC?
No
Firearms? Pepper spray?
No
(His tone and answers are... very Jersey.)
How would you describe the PBs ability to organize things?
Terribly, if there was a picnic, half of us wouldn't show up. Bonus points if you aren't drunk.

That ends direct of Guiffre by Hernandez and now Erik Kenerson conducts cross.
Rehl helped you get into Jersey PB chapter?
No, absolutely not

I live in Cherry Hill, NJ, roughly anywhere between 15-25 minutes anywhere in Philadelphia, I'm close to all the bridges...
He says he was close to all chapters in area at one pt
Kenerson: Chapters got along, intermingled?
Yeah, Guiffre says

Kenerson elicits that Guiffre joined MOSD on 1/1/21, a few days before 1/6.
You told Hernandez you had been to rallies before?
Yes
You familiar with party boys or rally boys?
Yes
Rehl was a rally boy?
Rehl was a party boy, Guiffre says.
Rehl didn't go to all of the rallies?

Guiffre says Rehl didn't go to every rally but he knew he was in DC.
Ken: For Dec 2020 rally?
Objection. sidebar.
Kenerson: He was here for 12/2020 rally?
There were multiple rallies, Guiffre says

Rehl was here for at least one in DC, Guiffre affirms.
Ken: Was Rehl a leader for MOSD?
Guiffre says he doesn't know if he was a leader, he didn't read all the msgs, I don't know who else is involved... I can't tell you all the members...would i say nationally?

yeah, obviously, there were more than Philly or NJ
Kenerson: Putting aside definition of national, was MOSD was not a rally planning chapter
No it was a planning chat
And you said you weren't a participant in that chat really at all?
Correct

In fact you had a hard time keeping up with MOSD chat?
G: i wouldn't even include myself in MOSD, so if some got deleted or added, it was news to me.

K: you just weren't paying attention?
G: Correct

Kenerson: When you fist spoke to Rehl about coming to DC on 1/5, that was prior to him having added you to MOSD chat?
Guiffre: I'm not sure.

Would looking at text messages refresh your memory?
Sure, Guiffre says.

Kenerson puts up a message on screen. It's from "Uncle Tony" (Guiffre) to "Captain Trump" - that's Rehl's handle.
Guiffre reads msg to himself.

Kenerson: That refresh your memory about what date you spoke to Mr. Rehl about going to Washington, DC?
G: Yes
k: What was that date?
G: 12/30/2020
Ken: And time you were added to MOSD was after this?
G: correct

When 1/6 got closer, you wanted to know where the meet up was in DC?
Yes
And you texted Rehl to ask him where to meet?
Yes
And by the time you did this, you knew he had invited you to that chat? (MOSD)
Yes

What Rehl told you on 1/5 was he was probably going to meet up with Nordean to go over a few things correct?
Yes, Guiffre testifies
You don't know whether they met?
Correct
But he told you his intent was to meet in DC?
Correct
And that was to go over some things?
Correct

Kenerson: on 1/6, you said you went to the Ellipse?
G: The Ellipse/
k: area where speeches were happening
G: oh yes
K: you said it was crowded?

G: it was crowded, too crowded to maneuver around and i was with other NJ PBS, we found it was going to be too hard to move together w/o having a problem with the crowd. the crowd was very thick that day

You didn't march with Rehl to Capitol that day?
I did not
You didn't see Rehl at all that day?
Guiffre, forcefully: Not at all
You said you went to get wings at a hotel lounge?
Guiffree afirms, then in lounge, they saw on CNN that rioters had breached grounds

Did you go to the Capitol after you saw that grounds had been breached?
No
Why not?
Guiffre: Because I didn't think it was such a good idea

Hernandez on redirect: You said Rehl was a party boy?
Guiffre: Yes
And party boys drank a lot? just about partying?
Yes, he affirms.

That's it from Hernandez.

And Judge Kelly dismisses the jury for the day. We will return tomorrow.

I will be back here at 9 a.m. for @emptywheel.
Thanks for joining me, as always.

@threadreaderapp unroll please